Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pub-headers: reduce C99 dependencies

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 29/09/2016 12:11, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 28/09/2016 23:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 28.09.16 at 21:42, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > On 28/09/2016 05:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > For consumers not using (fully) C99-aware compilers, limit the number
> > > > of places where tweaking of the headers would be necessary: Introduce
> > > > and use xen_mk_ullong(), allowing its helper macro to be overridden at
> > > > once.
> > > >
> > > > For now don't touch public/io/, which also has a few offenders.
> > > >
> > > > The need to include xen.h in hvm/e820.h demonstrates that it is a bad
> > > > idea to include public headers first thing - arch/x86/hvm/mtrr.c needs
> > > > adjustment just because of this.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > I wonder why all those ARM constants carry the ULL suffix despite only
> > > > two of them actually exceeding 32 significant bits.
> > > I am not the author of the code, but I think it was to declare all the
> > > constants of a given set uniformed.
> > >
> > > For instance all the GUEST_* constants are used to define the layout of
> > > the guest. This may be shuffle in this future (this is not part of ABI)
> > Oh, they're in a Xen/tools only section (the #endif could really be
> > annotated to help spot this) - in that case I could as well leave them
> > alone. Any preference?
> Correct. I can send a patch to annotate the #endif.
It looks like that I did not reply to your question. Do we expect the 
toolstack to always C99 standard? If not, then we should keep the 
xen_mk_ullong.
I am fine either way.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel